I'm voting for Obama, which I know isn't a surprise to people who know me. However, my path to support his candidacy has been a rough journey to say the least. To be honest, he was on the fringe of my radar until the Don Imus comment controversy. I'm not a fan of Imus, but I have enough intelligence to know what Imus' show is about. Here's what Obama said about the situation during an ABC interview:
Even though, like most of the people who speak negatively against it, I've never caught a complete Imus show, I do know that it isn't a show for straight societal commentary. However, I think Obama's point has merit because there are a lot of ignorant people out there who will use Imus' show as a foundation for their belief. Regardless of Obama's comments, I'm more concerned about recent bills passed under Bush and Congress than I am about what Obama has said, but it was enough to get me to originally pull for Giuliani.
At the beginning of the campaign season, the 2 candidates that caught my interest were Democrat Gravel and Republican Giuliani. Although I liked Gravel's tenacity and how he carried himself in the debates, his age was the determining factor for me - I don't want someone in office who could die and make things worse because a poorly-chosen vice president has taken the presidential reins.
My support for Giuliani parallels with Obama because he too did something I wasn't happy about; Giuliani caught a lot of national press during his time as mayor of a major metropolis, but it was his responses to art exhibits that I had issues with. There have been times when I wasn't happy with the presentation of a subject or exhibits, but I believe artistic expression falls under the freedom of speech argument. With the judicial and legislative branches of our government to deal with, I don't see him eroding some of our rights either, and I think his professional record spoke for itself.
I had to revisit my thoughts and concerns again after Giuliani dropped out after his Florida campaign failure. After discussions with people who were for other candidates and doing my own research, Obama seemed the better of the candidates to me. There were a few things that finally won me over: his consistency in the debates and speeches, and how his policies involve people more than government.
In the face of a conservative movement to push a perception that Obama supporters have some unrealistic illusion that things will either change from day one, or that failed conservative policies will cease to exist as soon as he sits in the Oval office, I'm here to say that I think most supporters are realistic enough to know that things won't change quickly for any newly elected president. Intellectually I believe it's a given and that discussions shouldn't be prefaced with that disclaimer. Unfortunately, in discussions with non-Obama supporters, you either have to dumb down and preface to even have some sort of a civil discussion, or you're dismissed as a kool-aid drinking loon. The hypocrisy is evident because most of these discussions are started by Obama haters who caught the latest conservative “Spam of the Day.” It's discussions like these that give Obama's Imus commentary weight. I have now accepted the beliefs that the common American is dumb as a stump and that we need to fix our education system to eradicate the stupidity that's consuming our country, and have decided to stay out of the intellectually insulting discussions that seem to be plaguing the Internet.
I acknowledge that my opinions are limiting and are intellectually on par with some of the McCain supporters. However, my ability to look inward allows me to capitalize on my shortcomings and see that when Obama speaks about Americans, he consistently speaks of them equally. The common reply I get to that is a reference to his San Francisco sound bite about bitter people clinging to guns and religion. One thing I learned early on is that a sound bite is great for creating intellectual wedges. Regardless of the fact that some Democrats attend church and own guns, they have an anti-gun and religion stigma. So, Obama's comment during a campaign fundraising dinner about why people have little faith in politicians and use smaller issues to make decisions gets shortened to make him sound elitist and anti-gun and religion. After that debacle, and the radical Muslim and madrassa educated e-mails, his speeches continue to be geared to one audience - Americans.
Democrats are also seen as socialist minded people. A perfect example that helps push that belief is Hillary's healthcare agenda where she mandates that everyone subscribe to her policy. In contrast, Obama's healthcare policy allows us a choice of going to his, staying on what we currently have, or none at all - with the exception of children. Children aren't able to protect for themselves, so I think his mandate for children is a no-brainer.
He also has an idea for a college assistance plan that's comparable to one of the programs that the military has. The only stipulation is that whoever uses it has to give back some of their time, which makes sense to me. Being similar to the military's, I don't see how his plan could be viewed as being bad. So given his stances on healthcare and college assistance, I don't see how his policies make the government into a dictating force, but rather another option for people.
My issues with McCain are many. I obviously don't know him on a personal level, so I can't say if he's a bad person or not. However, like Gravel, I'm not happy with him being up in age for the same reasons, but in reverse or doubled. Call it age-ism if you want, which is pulling a page from the Liberal handbook, but, to me, he doesn't look the same as he did on the 2000 campaign trail. Now he looks weathered and that bump on his left cheek looks more pronounced.
I'm also not happy with his temper. There's a common perception that Conservatives are the self-appointed moral police, so if you're going to call your wife a “cunt” whilst conversing about makeup, then you don't exemplify the standards used to support other agendas. Like the conservative view that Ahmadinejad would launch a nuke at Israel if given the chance, I can see McCain pressing “the button” in a fit of rage over a failed diplomatic attempt.
On one hand, I think the “4 more years of Bush” may be a tad overzealous. On the other, his experience does lend credence to that view. Being a “maverick” senator, I can totally see him using force to cowboy diplomacy, like Bush did with Iraq. Bush consulted oil companies on environmental policies, and, during times of record profits in oil futures, McCain wants to rescind the bans on drilling for finite oil resources instead of making America the leader in newer and cleaner alternatives.
The flip-flops, inconsistencies, and forced politicking are driving me ape-shit. At one point he says we could be in Iraq for a 100 years and it would be alright with him. Then he insults our intelligence by comparing it to our presences in Korea and Okinawa. It's insulting because we aren't in a combat capacity there. And when all that isn't working, he goes against his point about not setting a date and sets a date.
If anyone has listened to or read the transcripts of any Obama speech, they have heard him praise McCain for his heroism in the military as well as his time as a senator, before discussing the differences in their policies. Contrast that to McCain trying to make a terrorist link by commenting about Hamas liking Obama, copying Obama's web site design, and co-opting Obama's message for change. I don't know what's worse, McCain being caught in an interview talking about how he would talk with Hamas, or validating an opponent by plagiarizing their campaign.
"Insults, humor that degrades women, humor that is based in racism and racial stereotypes isn't fun," the senator told the network.
"And the notion that somehow it's cute or amusing, or a useful diversion, I think, is something that all of us have to recognize is just not the case. We all have First Amendment rights. And I am a constitutional lawyer and strongly believe in free speech, but as a culture, we really have to do some soul-searching to think about what kind of toxic information are we feeding our kids," he concluded.
Even though, like most of the people who speak negatively against it, I've never caught a complete Imus show, I do know that it isn't a show for straight societal commentary. However, I think Obama's point has merit because there are a lot of ignorant people out there who will use Imus' show as a foundation for their belief. Regardless of Obama's comments, I'm more concerned about recent bills passed under Bush and Congress than I am about what Obama has said, but it was enough to get me to originally pull for Giuliani.
At the beginning of the campaign season, the 2 candidates that caught my interest were Democrat Gravel and Republican Giuliani. Although I liked Gravel's tenacity and how he carried himself in the debates, his age was the determining factor for me - I don't want someone in office who could die and make things worse because a poorly-chosen vice president has taken the presidential reins.
My support for Giuliani parallels with Obama because he too did something I wasn't happy about; Giuliani caught a lot of national press during his time as mayor of a major metropolis, but it was his responses to art exhibits that I had issues with. There have been times when I wasn't happy with the presentation of a subject or exhibits, but I believe artistic expression falls under the freedom of speech argument. With the judicial and legislative branches of our government to deal with, I don't see him eroding some of our rights either, and I think his professional record spoke for itself.
I had to revisit my thoughts and concerns again after Giuliani dropped out after his Florida campaign failure. After discussions with people who were for other candidates and doing my own research, Obama seemed the better of the candidates to me. There were a few things that finally won me over: his consistency in the debates and speeches, and how his policies involve people more than government.
In the face of a conservative movement to push a perception that Obama supporters have some unrealistic illusion that things will either change from day one, or that failed conservative policies will cease to exist as soon as he sits in the Oval office, I'm here to say that I think most supporters are realistic enough to know that things won't change quickly for any newly elected president. Intellectually I believe it's a given and that discussions shouldn't be prefaced with that disclaimer. Unfortunately, in discussions with non-Obama supporters, you either have to dumb down and preface to even have some sort of a civil discussion, or you're dismissed as a kool-aid drinking loon. The hypocrisy is evident because most of these discussions are started by Obama haters who caught the latest conservative “Spam of the Day.” It's discussions like these that give Obama's Imus commentary weight. I have now accepted the beliefs that the common American is dumb as a stump and that we need to fix our education system to eradicate the stupidity that's consuming our country, and have decided to stay out of the intellectually insulting discussions that seem to be plaguing the Internet.
I acknowledge that my opinions are limiting and are intellectually on par with some of the McCain supporters. However, my ability to look inward allows me to capitalize on my shortcomings and see that when Obama speaks about Americans, he consistently speaks of them equally. The common reply I get to that is a reference to his San Francisco sound bite about bitter people clinging to guns and religion. One thing I learned early on is that a sound bite is great for creating intellectual wedges. Regardless of the fact that some Democrats attend church and own guns, they have an anti-gun and religion stigma. So, Obama's comment during a campaign fundraising dinner about why people have little faith in politicians and use smaller issues to make decisions gets shortened to make him sound elitist and anti-gun and religion. After that debacle, and the radical Muslim and madrassa educated e-mails, his speeches continue to be geared to one audience - Americans.
Democrats are also seen as socialist minded people. A perfect example that helps push that belief is Hillary's healthcare agenda where she mandates that everyone subscribe to her policy. In contrast, Obama's healthcare policy allows us a choice of going to his, staying on what we currently have, or none at all - with the exception of children. Children aren't able to protect for themselves, so I think his mandate for children is a no-brainer.
He also has an idea for a college assistance plan that's comparable to one of the programs that the military has. The only stipulation is that whoever uses it has to give back some of their time, which makes sense to me. Being similar to the military's, I don't see how his plan could be viewed as being bad. So given his stances on healthcare and college assistance, I don't see how his policies make the government into a dictating force, but rather another option for people.
My issues with McCain are many. I obviously don't know him on a personal level, so I can't say if he's a bad person or not. However, like Gravel, I'm not happy with him being up in age for the same reasons, but in reverse or doubled. Call it age-ism if you want, which is pulling a page from the Liberal handbook, but, to me, he doesn't look the same as he did on the 2000 campaign trail. Now he looks weathered and that bump on his left cheek looks more pronounced.
I'm also not happy with his temper. There's a common perception that Conservatives are the self-appointed moral police, so if you're going to call your wife a “cunt” whilst conversing about makeup, then you don't exemplify the standards used to support other agendas. Like the conservative view that Ahmadinejad would launch a nuke at Israel if given the chance, I can see McCain pressing “the button” in a fit of rage over a failed diplomatic attempt.
On one hand, I think the “4 more years of Bush” may be a tad overzealous. On the other, his experience does lend credence to that view. Being a “maverick” senator, I can totally see him using force to cowboy diplomacy, like Bush did with Iraq. Bush consulted oil companies on environmental policies, and, during times of record profits in oil futures, McCain wants to rescind the bans on drilling for finite oil resources instead of making America the leader in newer and cleaner alternatives.
The flip-flops, inconsistencies, and forced politicking are driving me ape-shit. At one point he says we could be in Iraq for a 100 years and it would be alright with him. Then he insults our intelligence by comparing it to our presences in Korea and Okinawa. It's insulting because we aren't in a combat capacity there. And when all that isn't working, he goes against his point about not setting a date and sets a date.
If anyone has listened to or read the transcripts of any Obama speech, they have heard him praise McCain for his heroism in the military as well as his time as a senator, before discussing the differences in their policies. Contrast that to McCain trying to make a terrorist link by commenting about Hamas liking Obama, copying Obama's web site design, and co-opting Obama's message for change. I don't know what's worse, McCain being caught in an interview talking about how he would talk with Hamas, or validating an opponent by plagiarizing their campaign.
